Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v KBM

The case of Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v KBM involved the respondent, who was subject to examination by psychiatrists for the purposes of the application. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent presents a serious danger to the community in the absence of a supervision order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (the DPSOA). Both the applicant and the respondent conceded the need for a supervision order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the DPSOA, and the length of the order under Division 3 of Part 2 of the DPSOA was not contested. The court was tasked with deciding whether such an order should be made and whether an oral hearing was mandated.

The court accepted the evidence of the psychiatrists, finding it to be acceptable cogent evidence that proved to a high degree of probability that the respondent now is an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence if released into the community without an order made under Division 3 of Part 2 of the DPSOA. The court was satisfied that a supervision order containing appropriate conditions would ensure adequate protection of the community by removing any unacceptable risk that the prisoner would commit a serious sexual offence. The court made an order that the respondent be released subject to the requirements set out in the Schedule to these reasons until 26 July 2029.

The court found that the supervision order should be in place for a period of ten years, as recommended by the psychiatrists. The order included various requirements such as reporting to a Corrective Services officer, complying with a curfew direction or monitoring direction, seeking permission and obtaining approval from a Corrective Services officer prior to entering into an employment agreement or engaging in volunteer work or paid or unpaid employment, and not leaving or staying out of Queensland without the written permission of a Corrective Services officer, among others. The court accepted the terms of the supervision order proposed by the parties, finding them to be appropriate.

The final orders made by the court were that the respondent be released subject to the requirements set out in the Schedule to these reasons until 26 July 2029. The respondent was subject to various requirements as part of the supervision order, aimed at ensuring adequate protection of the community and the respondent's rehabilitation or care or treatment.